[clang-tools-extra] r215839 - First version of a clang-rename tool.
klimek at google.com
Mon Aug 18 22:27:22 PDT 2014
On Mon Aug 18 2014 at 11:20:14 PM Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote:
>> On Sun Aug 17 2014 at 11:43:39 PM Rafael Espíndola <
>> rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > Note that we do want to migrate (most of) clang-format's tests to lit
>>> > (because most of them are integration tests), but that's a different
>>> Well, that was the topic of my reply :-)
>>> When gtest is appropriate, do use it. My request was just to not build
>>> another large test set that we want to migrate in the future.
>> Then we agree! :) Please give specific feedback if you see a gtest test
>> that you think should be a lit test!
> In this case, it seems like you should write a unit test for the routine
> that uses the offsets to actually do the renaming. Then you can write this
> test as a lit test that checks that the relevant things get renamed.
Yes, the routine that finds what is under the cursor is unit tested, the
rename is lit tested. I'm not sure how that differs from what you're
> Also, why are we committing code that is "grossly under-tested" in the
> first place? (sorry if this was discussed in another thread)
a) it was a little tongue-in-cheek from my side (mainly meaning that I
think we should focus the next steps on the testing first, before adding
b) I'm generally fine with incremental development in-tree (especially for
> -- Sean Silva
>> cfe-commits mailing list
>> cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cfe-commits